PB666

https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2016/may/14/picturing-particles-the-evolution-of-event-displays

Oil production from plants is not very efficient, the most efficient are proposals to grow oil producing algae which the oil is extracted. The oil generated from plants is very different from that found in the ground, and tends to acidify with repeated exposure to heat and free radicals. The problem with hydrogen generation is simply this, its inefficient. The problem with hydrogen usage is simply this, it does not store densely, and the dense storage schemes are expensive. Despite its cost hydrogen does offer on real time advantage - it can be used to lower the viscosity of tar sand oil making it a much more acceptable choice, without increasing greenhouse gases like methane. - it can be an alternative power usage in areas with alot of wind energy when the local power output exceeds saturation and transmission lines exceed saturation. - it can be used in areas with unusually high wind or geothermal generation capacity relative to the population size.

It is a concern for arctic ecology, for example 5 years of warming trend puts alot of trees at stress due to the survival of pests through winter, again sea Ice is the abode of polar bears and seals, not the fluffy snow from a season of heavy snow, but year over year ice. The arctic is rather important for the climate of Canada and North Eastern US, such events can cause freekish winter weather, a few years of unprecedented warm (insect problems, crop failures, depleted reservoirs) followed by years of unprecedented snowfall and icestorms (power failures, road closures, airport closures). This year for example there are the Albertan Ft. McMurry fires which have suffered from unusually warm dry air this year. Fires this early that far north are very unusual, of course year in and year out unusual things will happen, but this happened during a year of extremely unusual high temperatures in that region of North America, with extremely high temperatures averaging across the world. This may, in the grand scheme of things, be how prairies begin, the removal of trees by fire, the culturing of soils by fire resistent plants. So if there is an increased fire tendency across the NW N. America, the consequence is the alteration of the ecology.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36303046 As everyone here is probably aware 2016 has really broken temperature records for just about every month this year. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/05/10/climate-spiral-rising-global-temperatures/84185746/ but the real problem is not this, the arctic this year is melting at an unprecidented rate, and we run into the basic problem that sea ice is thinner than it has ever been. https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sets-yet-another-record-low-maximum-extent The models are conflicted at present. This is not an exaggeration, Ice most quickly erodes from the bering sea inward, as of yet is has never eroded the all the ice around Greenland. This year could be exceptional. One model suggest climate oscillation in the arctic, year one year with markedly different climate conditions. Another risk is that the buffering effect of ice on Greenland is lost and Greenland begins a highly accelerated melting. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

To far into a gravity well, not enough hv available, I would say mars moons are the only place to start for metal salts, look for the odd low period comet and intercept for the volatiles. Ion drives would be magnesium driven.

But the software needs to be specifically programmed in many cases to take advantage of that,mwhich means you get really big operating systems for the various levels of tasking and really big programs.

Orbit would be more stable around venus compared to any Earth la grange point. Venus is the only safe place in the inner solar system.

Its a red dwarf car.

Still, no one would allow you to do it.....so its not ever going to happen..... so why do we still discuss. In fact why do we bring tech here over and over agian that no serious space venture has designs in development to use.......if for no other sake is to argue about them.

A stable orbit for second mars is in orbit around Venus. Pretty much same fate but Venus might fair batter off if its most volatile gases had be retained.

Darnok is secretly building cloked dyson spheres, two fantasy technologies combined to create one mega fantasy. BTW one could hide a sphere by simply piping the waste enegy to flow +/- out of the galactic plane. About as illogical as a dyson sphere construction.

Oh, boy the honey-pot definetly needs to be emptied.

For an alien species to completely destroy a dyson syapstem would require 10000 times the energy to build it, and the resources aren't gone and the dyson builders would be builiding as you tear it. You have to transport the energy from your system the the target system.

Awesomely unlaunchable from earth, LEO, MEO.

No le hace. No one would ever propose launching it from Earth. Orion is a pipe dream of people who think a space program can ignire national and world .........

Equilibrium is not reached immediately, it would take a long time, the destabilization wave would not immediately atomize the structure, If you take an eathworm and cut it in half, you dont have a dead earthworm, you simply have two smaller eartworms. If you take a long strip and shake one iend as to break pieces off in a wave, what you will do is break pieces at a flexibikity limit, a good dyson belt would simply have a stabikizer and have the pieces reform into the original shape in anticipation of the gap filling structures.

If a dyson sphere existed and you struck with the largest bomb you coukd dream of it would take a thouasnd years for the bomb to destroy, in the meantime you have made some bees very angry at you.

But there can be no static view of the Universe as I told you, with out knowledge of is origin their is only superficial knowledge of its existance. In response to Majorjim, the universe does not need a center now or the center is an observable, but to know the universe you would have to have a snapshot of inflation, which did fleetingly have center prior to the general motion outward exceeding SoL, the problem is that is prior tobspace-time and withou space time how can an exterior position of view exist. We often equate the visible universe with the universe, if one was omnisentient, the visible universe would be nothing more than parsect in space-time. The brain cannot exist, it would be like a dream still asleep and unaware of actual reality. If we claim knowledge of the universe, we would half to know many facts, how wide it is a any given moment, what dark energy is, where it pour in, why it pours in, etc.

Docking was not so hard once i realized the docking tools in Ksp were useless. I remember the first night i played, trying to get whats his face (at that time i didn't know his name Jeb) back into his space craft without a reflex knowledge of the jetpack hotkeys and sitting their watching the space capsule orbit me with each orbit of kerbin. Once i realized you had to approach fast and kill speed then approach more slowly to intercept . . . . . . . . If you think the US had problems, the soviets had major problems, eventually they had a rule that only an experienced pilot who went on a previous docking mission could be on the next docking mission. I like the idea of assembly in space, it allows the standardization of lauch vehicles and ultimately lowerss the cost cause you ca recycle the launch vehicle. Docking is a problem but if you are not to picky it can be done, quickly. Secondarily NASA need not lauch in rapid succession, they could have launch durable vehicles first.

It would be a no win for the soviets if they went they would be no better than be second place if they failed ot would make them look incompetant. chinese have landed a rover on the moon, they might want a manned miusion at some later point?

Read other posts, and uts according to whose current hypothesis. CMBR is the current limit of knowledge which precede this discussion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/first-eukaryotes-found-without-normal-cellular-power-supply?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2016-05-13&et_rid=16756882&et_cid=485342 Mitochondria free eucaryotes.

I found a planet, woke up this morning, crawled out of bed and put my feet down, there it was! How could you guys have missed it?

Then use the universe before we perceived it, the universe before the light of the CMWBR was emitted. Its immaterial from our point of view because we can't observe it. Then the next question could anyone have observed it, the answer is only if they had eyes that saw things traveling faster than the speed of light and could see things happening at 10-34 seconds. Based upon our known laws. Time has no value in a universal quantum singularity, nor spatial dimensions, temperature or mass and since no known theory can describe how the singularity ends or how space-time begins, and it is a non-testable hypothesis, suffice it to say you cannot create space-time simply because its convenient. Somewhere before matter begins, somehow energy poured into the system, that rolled out the fabric of space (the so-called higgs field). Read any text or observe any theory, none describe precisely when the higgs field arose, most argue it began spreading before the end of the initial inflation at which point space and time have a component. But the reality is this, given quantum singularity, given the fact that quantum space and time do not precisely describe the limits of motion in either direction, at the moment that the singularity ended space time and inflation may have begun with a tensor force applied to all energy relative to position in a bubble. All variations in between could exist from an accelerative spreading to as previously stated. But at the end of that process we have what is referred to as the big bang ( a rather heated expansion), where energy from whereever pours into spatial dimensions and heat and temperature exists as we know it, spreading those dimensions out and cooling the universe. For all we know the higgs field could still be pouring into the Universe. My interpretation is this since even energy is bound by Einsteins theory of relativity, a bound scalar state that is halved cannot travel away from the other half greater than the speed of light, therefore the spread is a consequence of the quantum state. It does allow halved states to half themselves and repeat, but then that most uniform CMWBR radiation. Therefore much of inflation has to be governed in a self resolving quantum state. This is inenigmatic unless you are considering exotic energy or fields (which I don't), prior to space-time the universe can be in all time and spatial dimensions or none, but at some point it resolved into the Universe. As I have repeatedly pointed out, that is a belief that is not substantiated, it is a bias based on the fact that CMBR is relatively uniform, but given the universe is of unknown size at least 92 billion light years across and we can only see about 26 billion light years and given the uniformity of inflation . . . . . .All that we know, for fact, is that we are not on the edge, that is the only scientifically supportable fact, none other are supportable. We also know that the universe does not curl back in on itself and geometric in all directions excepting the occasional black hole is Euclidean flat. Because of inflation no matter where you are in the bubble, whether it be the center or closer to the edge, everything is moving away from you, if you are on the edge you probably would never as the question to begin with, from the edge point of view the big bang has just occurred, that is because to be on the edge you simply are light moving out into space, and light does not age, and thus the big bang just occurred and you, a beam of light, just occurred.

The quantum states fate is only realized once it is traveling away faster than the speed of light, aprioir quauntum gravity is not resolved as a consequence the state is not observed, it simply exists in some inobservable free of the constraints of space and time, to observe is a process that occurs over time. At any given position in space except the precise center the symmtry of the entire process cannot be observed, the symettry that we see is a local symmetry as a consequence of inflation, if we were at the ceneter we could not infer that either unless we existed while the initial inflation was resolving. There is no matter, there is no observer until matter exists, thus the god observer cannot be material and would need to be free of space and time. After inflation the universe is composed of intercommunication quantum states superposed, but the resolution of the communication is on planks scale. If we could tap into and rwad all of those at once we could backtrack the universe to its origin and creating a faux space-time frame observe it, but alas we still cannot see quantum gravity or convince it tomtalk to us. This is one of the pondries of the early universe because it was so extremely hot, by any fathomable standard of measure it was cold, because zero is the register of something that cannot be measured. We have to create an artificial extrapolation to define how much energy is in the unit space, but the nature of that energy is undefined because its trapped in the entirity of a quantum singularity. Much like we cannot see the energy inside a black hole. During inflation the singularity resolves, I cannot even speculate on this process. I could imagine that the universe antipated space-time and started to fill all that. But if that were the case, if inflation is the result of a many possible positions quantum resolution then observation is not required. Hypotheticaly while bouncing around in 'time' the universe realized an outcome where space-time existed and thus resolved to occupy the space. Some papers claim that space time is a response to a fracturing the scalar energy within quatum gravity. In this particular scenario the spreading of energy is consistency of order moving to disorder.